Orvis v. Thompson

1 Johns. 500
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1806·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The license produced by the defendant below, was valid. The act of a majority of the commissioners of excise, was sufficient, and it was so considered in the case of Palmer, qui tam. &c. v. Downey, decided in this cpurt, in October term, 1801. The supervisor may, in his "discretion, associate more than two justices with him, as [502] commissioners of excise. The number is not limited by the act to three and no more. The consent of the supervisor is not indispen sable If a majority of the commissioners present sign the license, it is sufficient. The judgment below, must be reversed?

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Orvis v. Thompson, 1 Johns. 500 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1806).

1 Johns. 500 (Orvis v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Cook
14 Barb. 259 (New York Supreme Court, 1852)
Ex parte Rogers
7 Cow. 526 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)